I do not think that there was anything remotely "cringing, cowardly, submissive" about such historical figures as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King- in fact, these are two of the most remarkable men of the twentieth century. It is a radical misunderstanding of religious belief to assume that it turns men and women into wretches! I would add that this is because the concept of God gives to human beings an ultimate ground of intrinsic worth- this is something that secularism can never give.
Improtant point made here : Nietzsche was never a nihilist: His entiry philosophy was focused on fighting nihilism ( For him Christianity especialy was an incarnation of nihilism made into an entire lawsystem) and creating a new idea, a new... valuesystem i think you could say, based on life itself
Randy Abern great minds think alike. I agree with you, we are alive, so why should we do what we want? isn't it better to have no purpose? Nihilism makes people free from everything.
@NPC #45095367 I understand that creating a meaning to your life is something a bit hard, but I guess I made it. I made some options and went for it. I feel fine, even though my meaning is fragile, of course. Not supported by any real thing. I could lose it all of a sudden. I think Nietzsche wasn't able to do that and feel fine because he had a lot of other types of trouble. His trouble with women, for instance.
He told the story wrong! He said "and they didn't believe him" when the Madman claimed that God was dead and that we have killed him. The people in the marketplace were mostly non-believers to begin with. They just didn't understand the weight or deeper message behind saying that "God is dead". It's not just an exclamation of atheism, but a call to responsibility to the people who killed God through pity. That they must now take ownership of their own lives and file for divorce from reverence. The people were just silent. Not excited or worried. That's why it was the wrong time, I believe.
And this man is a philosophical writer I can never buy someone's book if he's telling the story wrong cuz as a philosophical writer you should know everything by heart
This is just Nietzsche 101... A basic introduction to his famous phrase. You know, the more I live - the more I realize how Kierkegaard anticipated Nietzsche. Another great philosopher worth reading.
"However, inasmuch as Nietzsche understands his own thinking - the doctrine of the the will to power as the 'principle of the new value-positing' - in the sense of the actual consumation of nihilism, he no longer understands nihilism merely negatively as the devaluing of the highest values, but at the same time he understands it positively, that is, as the overcoming of nihilism." - Martin Heidegger, 'The Word of Nietzsche,' 'The Question Concerning Technology'
I agree: Neitzsche really was a Proto-Transhumanist, and much less sanguine than the Existentialists. He also was working along the vain of of this inexact quote: "theosophy/cosmology beg us to ponder the existence of life after death, whereas materialism is asking us if life exists before death."
However, the most important point is this: there is no intrinsic conflict between religious belief and science/reason. There are obviously conflicts between different understandings (re fundamentalist) of religious belief and science, but fundamentalism is a modern heresy, not traditional orthodoxy. Interestingly, Professor Alvin Plantinga has written a compelling book arguing that there IS a conflict but not between science & religion but between naturalism and science/reason!
@@ishangyan9051 no he summarized it pretty well. It's just that he's struggling too much to utter what's obvious in Nietzsche's thinking. That's not an examination Sorry for being a week late btw
being able to adequately mourn the death of god implies taking up the arduous task of thinking the finite. all theoretical foundations are constructs that apropriate the finite to their preconcieved demands. the point is to do away, not just with god, but with any intellectual crutch that attempts to deal with the world by surpressing it. that, i think, is the challange nietzsche identified.
Simon Critchley does not have a "primitive" understanding of Nietzsche. He's taking this from Nietzsche's Nachlass ("The Will to Power" chapter 1: Nihilism). He's written on this in "Very little...Almost nothing."
"God makes us cowardly submissive creatures" Say that to any Viking, Celt, Slav, Templar...etc. On the other hand Nietzsche had a friend propose to a girl for him... i'll just let that speak for itself.
Ways can be different, but usually have the same end, only world never be used to move beyond words itself. However, do we have a will? Thank your inspirational video, and Nietzsche' my ambitious philosopher
You have to love thinking, and read on the thoughts of others so as to catch up with the history of thinking and maybe not merely repeat what someone else has already thought but instead make a genuine contribution to human thinking. Over the course of working on that, you may or may not receive academic acknowledgment. If you're trying to ridicule the notion of academic philosophy, you're clearly not a philosopher since if you were you would know that that is not a new thought at all.
Yes, that is exactly what I think Nietzsche meant when he said "God is dead, and we have killed him". It's not just through technological advancement however, although that is a significant portion of this conundrum. The bible preaches that God is omnipotent so how could he die on a physical level? He can't. However, he can die on a metaphysical level through the abuse of his name and by an extension what he and Christianity stand for. Christianity has been behind some of the most heinous chapters in western history: The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Reconquista, and The Age of Imperialism to mention only a few. Through history the name of God has been degraded almost to the point of nothingness, which is a shame really because Christianity does teach some good morals.
Nietzsche wanted to change your ideas of morals, and values, alright. "Will to power, is the exploitation of man by man, and this exploitation is the essence of life". Further, he proposed a theory of morals, which aren't universal, but differ based on consequence, and intent. Master morality being the former, slave morality being the later. He also claims there is very little master morality left, and we are much more conditioned for a sense of slave morality.
nineteen twentyone no it wasn't, he didn't even properly tell the parable of the madman. he doesn't really understand Nietzsche, it's quite clear if you do have a reasonable understanding of Nietzsche
you want him to dissect parable of the mad man for what reason? he is just giving a general overview of a thinker in 2:50 minutes. touching on points the interviewer probably questioned him on. also, what deeper understanding is there to arrive at regarding the parable? there are far better passages - all through out beyond good and evil- to draw on when regarding Nietzsche's philosophy. it is merely referenced because of its striking ability to awe the reader. why are you making a big deal out of it? plus the mad man is none other than himself and it makes sense when put in the context of where it comes from. The Gay science is merely that a self realization of self for Nietzsche. In where he really begins to break away from Wagner and Schopenhauer and comes into himself. And if you were going to compare his works in where he expresses his ego that would be best portrayed in any one of the passages of "why I am destiny" in Ecce Homo. now stop making a big deal over a 2:50 minute video. you sound like a herd animal that is jealous of this guys for being able to talk about your idol instead of you. lol.
Nietzsche in his older years ran in circles calling horses his brethren, because we are all horses in the race of life. In the end he fell prey to the very things he hated... nihilism. That's where you get the idea of the modern film, "They shoot Horses don't they?". Vanity of Vanities!
this guy is WRONG about what God is Dead means. it means we have kept the morals, values and traditions from "God" but have dropped God himself. simple as that. kind of like modern day humanists, 100% christian morality without the god.
Don't take my word for it though. Read him yourself and come to your own conclusions. If we're just going to appeal to authorities though, I think I'll stick with Heidegger over Critchley.
he tries to make a postmodern interpretation of god is dead. He also misses out the fact that the reason they did not believe the old man is because the people in the town were atheists and thought he was mad for mentioning god at all. His definition of nihilism is dreadful too, it's not believing in nothing. Nietzsche condemns people who have false beliefs for nihilism, after all believing something that is not true is believing nothing when you think about it.
Put another way, Nietzsche attempts to overcome nihilism (in a normative or prescriptive sense) by pushing it to it's logical conclusion. It's a charitable or "innocent" interpretation of the "fact" of nihilism. Ray Brassier gives a much more accurate summary of this in 'Nihil Unbound.' I realize this is a big think video and you don't get much detail, but I honestly just disagree with Critchley. Enjoyed his book on dead philosophers though.
For Nietzsche "God" makes us "cringing, cowardly, submissive creatures" (according to Simon Critchley's reading of Nietzsche). If this is what Nietzsche genuinely thought- which I doubt- it is obviously wrong. It seems to me that Nietzsche was rejecting the historically contingent conception of God found within his own time and place which was basically Lutheran/Calvinist. In fact, it's not even so much this concept of God, but the Lutheran understanding of anthropology, which was bleak.
"the idea is incredible to people and we can no longer believe it" ....hmm I wonder where he lives ....the majority worldwide is nowhere near that ...unfortunately ...but it is inevitable in the long run ...so that's something
nihilism = realism Its the harsh reality that Nietzche understood. I'm not an expert on Nietzche, so correct me if I'm wrong. I hope that nihilism isn't the most realistic perspective of the world, but it certainly looks like it is.
Nihilism is simply negation of everything which is per Se not philosophically realistic position. In realism there are many affirmative attitudes both in ontology and morality for instance the nature of being as an existing active agent in reality and the idea of compassion as universal and positive virtue that is accepted both by medieval and modern philosophers.
nihilism is a experience, a moment in time. its more a feeling than rational thought. its fear and confusion, discomfort and anxiety. hence, you either strive above it or capitulate to the idols of worship.
Critchley is maybe the most overrated "philosopher" in the business. Nietzsche's madman went to the marketplace (not the "town square"), and more importantly, the people there did NOT disbelieve the madman when he said that God is dead; they all laughed at him because this pronouncement was old news already for them. This talk was so so weak... "or something like that."
Pick your poison. You either believe God is dead and let man determine man's fate (war, greed, famine, etc) or you let God and the Church run the show like they did for many a years and let them abuse the common man with their own power and greed.
Haha haha, instead it’s the other way around. Nietzsche is long dead. God from eternity to eternity He is. He dwells outside of time and space; He is eternal, sovereign and lord of all; Him alone is holy and worthy to be praised.
Well the very fact that you are watching this video on him is enough to prove he lives on...ideas dont need a mortal form to inspire people...like how god inspires theists without one being sure of the existence of his/her mortal form
Keerthi Vasen@ ideas don’t need a mortal form to inspire people..... No doubt about that. God is dead that was his theme. He negatively inspired (s) people to reject their own creator. Can’t compare the materialistic world to the invisible one. According to atheism, Once an atheist dies, he/she stops exiting. theists argue, On the other hand, either you believe in God or not, once one is dead he/she still lives. Although his ideas live on, It’s quite clear that Friedrich Nietzsche is dead and awaiting Gods judgement.
Prof Simon knows so little about Nietzsche - it is laughable. God is not 'God' - it is all of those things that ground or anchor our beliefs. Nietzsche is not - and never does - prescribe anything. His observation about God is not to steer us away from nihilism - it is to observe that nihilism is on the way. He is doing genealogy - not metaphysics - he would laugh at a metaphysician - as he would laugh at Prof Simon. But I must admit - Prof Simon does amazing work with the ancient Greeks.
Hi guys. All of this God is dead stuff is really amazing. Maybe he is dead. Maybe he deserves such a thing. You all seem really, really smart, all of you. I've got a question about a couple of Lutheran guys named Adolph Hitler and Johann Sebastian Bach: What's the difference? God is dead, isn't he? Bach was a German, and Hitler a devout student of the Bible, right? Maybe it's all good and evens out in the end. No worries. Have a happenin' day. Cheers and regards and all of the best. Gee, you're all smart as hell. I'm kinda impressed. Keep reading. Nietzsche is only sleeping.
this is total illiterate rubbish. and making the comment 'gee's your all so clever' is not a condescending comment in the way you want it, has anyone in history ever been offending for being called clever? don't take out your frustrations for you own lack of intellect, by trying to belittle those who are content with their own intellectual abilities
Judeo-Christian God had to die for man's sin. The Greek gods engage in no such activities. Judeo-Christian God made man in his own image. The Greek gods were made in man's own elevated image = Ubermensch. Greek gods to Nietzsche were more interesting because they are alive and imperfect. Christian God is "perfect" yet dead and we killed him. Hehe........
I do not think that there was anything remotely "cringing, cowardly, submissive" about such historical figures as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King- in fact, these are two of the most remarkable men of the twentieth century. It is a radical misunderstanding of religious belief to assume that it turns men and women into wretches! I would add that this is because the concept of God gives to human beings an ultimate ground of intrinsic worth- this is something that secularism can never give.
Improtant point made here : Nietzsche was never a nihilist: His entiry philosophy was focused on fighting nihilism ( For him Christianity especialy was an incarnation of nihilism made into an entire lawsystem) and creating a new idea, a new... valuesystem i think you could say, based on life itself
But the opposite is not the same.
+SQP85 where?
Randy Abern great minds think alike.
I agree with you, we are alive, so why should we do what we want? isn't it better to have no purpose? Nihilism makes people free from everything.
@NPC #45095367 I understand that creating a meaning to your life is something a bit hard, but I guess I made it. I made some options and went for it. I feel fine, even though my meaning is fragile, of course. Not supported by any real thing. I could lose it all of a sudden.
I think Nietzsche wasn't able to do that and feel fine because he had a lot of other types of trouble. His trouble with women, for instance.
He told the story wrong! He said "and they didn't believe him" when the Madman claimed that God was dead and that we have killed him.
The people in the marketplace were mostly non-believers to begin with.
They just didn't understand the weight or deeper message behind saying that "God is dead".
It's not just an exclamation of atheism, but a call to responsibility to the people who killed God through pity. That they must now take ownership of their own lives and file for divorce from reverence.
The people were just silent. Not excited or worried.
That's why it was the wrong time, I believe.
Interesting interpretation
Exactly, I thought the same thing as soon as Simon said "they didn't believe him".
I think he took a position wich is very close to the one Foucault had in "The Order of Things", if it helps.
And this man is a philosophical writer I can never buy someone's book if he's telling the story wrong cuz as a philosophical writer you should know everything by heart
This is just Nietzsche 101... A basic introduction to his famous phrase. You know, the more I live - the more I realize how Kierkegaard anticipated Nietzsche. Another great philosopher worth reading.
"However, inasmuch as Nietzsche understands his own thinking - the doctrine of the the will to power as the 'principle of the new value-positing' - in the sense of the actual consumation of nihilism, he no longer understands nihilism merely negatively as the devaluing of the highest values, but at the same time he understands it positively, that is, as the overcoming of nihilism." - Martin Heidegger, 'The Word of Nietzsche,' 'The Question Concerning Technology'
I agree: Neitzsche really was a Proto-Transhumanist, and much less sanguine than the Existentialists.
He also was working along the vain of of this inexact quote: "theosophy/cosmology beg us to ponder the existence of life after death, whereas materialism is asking us if life exists before death."
However, the most important point is this: there is no intrinsic conflict between religious belief and science/reason. There are obviously conflicts between different understandings (re fundamentalist) of religious belief and science, but fundamentalism is a modern heresy, not traditional orthodoxy. Interestingly, Professor Alvin Plantinga has written a compelling book arguing that there IS a conflict but not between science & religion but between naturalism and science/reason!
Nietzsche was a rare visionary.
I would have expected this from a high school student who was forced to read Nietzsche and went straight to wikipedia.
what was did he say wrong
sorry to be 7 years late:-)
@@ishangyan9051 no he summarized it pretty well. It's just that he's struggling too much to utter what's obvious in Nietzsche's thinking. That's not an examination
Sorry for being a week late btw
being able to adequately mourn the death of god implies taking up the arduous task of thinking the finite. all theoretical foundations are constructs that apropriate the finite to their preconcieved demands. the point is to do away, not just with god, but with any intellectual crutch that attempts to deal with the world by surpressing it. that, i think, is the challange nietzsche identified.
Hey that's a great idea!!! I'm gonna make my own video of that, and no one will suspect a thing :3
Profile pic + comment = perfect synergy.
I came to soon. So says my girlfriend.
Jon Lajoie: I come too fast :D
I think she should've added an ed
No, she said "you came too soon. But I didn't at all."
Thanks so much! Been looking for a short explanation for this.
Nietzsche reminds me of king Nebuchadnezzar.
Simon Critchley does not have a "primitive" understanding of Nietzsche. He's taking this from Nietzsche's Nachlass ("The Will to Power" chapter 1: Nihilism). He's written on this in "Very little...Almost nothing."
"God makes us cowardly submissive creatures" Say that to any Viking, Celt, Slav, Templar...etc. On the other hand Nietzsche had a friend propose to a girl for him... i'll just let that speak for itself.
Ways can be different, but usually have the same end, only world never be used to move beyond words itself. However, do we have a will? Thank your inspirational video, and Nietzsche' my ambitious philosopher
Very true statement actually
Hint: Nietzsche is the 'madman' searching for God in the marketplace!
this guy is teaching next to zizek and judith butler and youre saying dont listen to him listen to me random youtube person
"Smth like that" - Simon Critchley
You have to love thinking, and read on the thoughts of others so as to catch up with the history of thinking and maybe not merely repeat what someone else has already thought but instead make a genuine contribution to human thinking.
Over the course of working on that, you may or may not receive academic acknowledgment.
If you're trying to ridicule the notion of academic philosophy, you're clearly not a philosopher since if you were you would know that that is not a new thought at all.
How is it primitive? I'm curious and would appreciate an answer.
the news is still arriving
Yes, that is exactly what I think Nietzsche meant when he said "God is dead, and we have killed him".
It's not just through technological advancement however, although that is a significant portion of this conundrum. The bible preaches that God is omnipotent so how could he die on a physical level? He can't. However, he can die on a metaphysical level through the abuse of his name and by an extension what he and Christianity stand for. Christianity has been behind some of the most heinous chapters in western history: The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Reconquista, and The Age of Imperialism to mention only a few.
Through history the name of God has been degraded almost to the point of nothingness, which is a shame really because Christianity does teach some good morals.
And I have read Critchley's books, so don't bother instructing me to as if that was anything resembling engagement.
2:50 yes something like that
Oh daniel why, why !!!;(
Because Nietzche told him to in his sleep.
Nietzsche wanted to change your ideas of morals, and values, alright.
"Will to power, is the exploitation of man by man, and this exploitation is the essence of life".
Further, he proposed a theory of morals, which aren't universal, but differ based on consequence, and intent. Master morality being the former, slave morality being the later. He also claims there is very little master morality left, and we are much more conditioned for a sense of slave morality.
The only thing I learned from this video is that, whoever Simon Critchley is, he hasn't spent much time getting to know Nietzsche.
exactly
the video was far to short to make such a generalization.
nineteen twentyone no it wasn't, he didn't even properly tell the parable of the madman. he doesn't really understand Nietzsche, it's quite clear if you do have a reasonable understanding of Nietzsche
you want him to dissect parable of the mad man for what reason? he is just giving a general overview of a thinker in 2:50 minutes. touching on points the interviewer probably questioned him on.
also, what deeper understanding is there to arrive at regarding the parable? there are far better passages - all through out beyond good and evil- to draw on when regarding Nietzsche's philosophy. it is merely referenced because of its striking ability to awe the reader. why are you making a big deal out of it?
plus the mad man is none other than himself and it makes sense when put in the context of where it comes from. The Gay science is merely that a self realization of self for Nietzsche. In where he really begins to break away from Wagner and Schopenhauer and comes into himself. And if you were going to compare his works in where he expresses his ego that would be best portrayed in any one of the passages of "why I am destiny" in Ecce Homo.
now stop making a big deal over a 2:50 minute video. you sound like a herd animal that is jealous of this guys for being able to talk about your idol instead of you. lol.
nineteen twentyone my criticism was simply that his opening comments were inaccurate, and for that reason I can't take his analysis seriously.
A good example regarding why we shouldn't talk about something we don't completely know about.
Nietzsche in his older years ran in circles calling horses his brethren, because we are all horses in the race of life.
In the end he fell prey to the very things he hated... nihilism.
That's where you get the idea of the modern film, "They shoot Horses don't they?".
Vanity of Vanities!
Simon Critchley is hereby invited to examine my bollocks.
Good Day.
i guess you gradually realize your a philosopher when you can't stop thinking all the time.
Nietzsche that's a hard name to pronounce. DAMN MY DIALECT
this guy is WRONG about what God is Dead means. it means we have kept the morals, values and traditions from "God" but have dropped God himself. simple as that. kind of like modern day humanists, 100% christian morality without the god.
*reads description*
How does one become a philosopher?
Is it self proclaimed? Or do you have a certificate? ;)
Don't take my word for it though. Read him yourself and come to your own conclusions. If we're just going to appeal to authorities though, I think I'll stick with Heidegger over Critchley.
Every time he says Nietzsche I swear it sounds like he's saying Nature.
Wish we had such philosophical toilets in Manchester...
he tries to make a postmodern interpretation of god is dead. He also misses out the fact that the reason they did not believe the old man is because the people in the town were atheists and thought he was mad for mentioning god at all. His definition of nihilism is dreadful too, it's not believing in nothing. Nietzsche condemns people who have false beliefs for nihilism, after all believing something that is not true is believing nothing when you think about it.
Put another way, Nietzsche attempts to overcome nihilism (in a normative or prescriptive sense) by pushing it to it's logical conclusion. It's a charitable or "innocent" interpretation of the "fact" of nihilism. Ray Brassier gives a much more accurate summary of this in 'Nihil Unbound.' I realize this is a big think video and you don't get much detail, but I honestly just disagree with Critchley.
Enjoyed his book on dead philosophers though.
"something like that..."
My Face When the comments are 10x smarter than the "big thinker"...
This guy just opened a Nietzsche's book?
I came too soon too :(
For Nietzsche "God" makes us "cringing, cowardly, submissive creatures" (according to Simon Critchley's reading of Nietzsche). If this is what Nietzsche genuinely thought- which I doubt- it is obviously wrong. It seems to me that Nietzsche was rejecting the historically contingent conception of God found within his own time and place which was basically Lutheran/Calvinist. In fact, it's not even so much this concept of God, but the Lutheran understanding of anthropology, which was bleak.
"the idea is incredible to people and we can no longer believe it" ....hmm I wonder where he lives ....the majority worldwide is nowhere near that ...unfortunately ...but it is inevitable in the long run ...so that's something
God dammit Daniel
Knew this already
How we are different from the rest of life is that we have moral systems, whereas no other living thing does.
Which one?
I think if I was bald and wore a black turtleneck more people would take me seriously than they do now, which is not at all.
I don't think you know what a turtleneck is
Konstantin Minch
Turtleneck, henley, they all look good on bald people.
God is Dead is the proper conclusion of the Bible. The omnipotent deity dies on the cross
nihilism = realism
Its the harsh reality that Nietzche understood.
I'm not an expert on Nietzche, so correct me if I'm wrong.
I hope that nihilism isn't the most realistic perspective of the world, but it certainly looks like it is.
Nihilism is simply negation of everything which is per Se not philosophically realistic position. In realism there are many affirmative attitudes both in ontology and morality for instance the nature of being as an existing active agent in reality and the idea of compassion as universal and positive virtue that is accepted both by medieval and modern philosophers.
nilhilism = Nazism. Very dangerous ideology
nihilism is a experience, a moment in time. its more a feeling than rational thought. its fear and confusion, discomfort and anxiety. hence, you either strive above it or capitulate to the idols of worship.
agreed. after jesus christ made his mark on earth, God has been pretty quiet ever since
Critchley is maybe the most overrated "philosopher" in the business. Nietzsche's madman went to the marketplace (not the "town square"), and more importantly, the people there did NOT disbelieve the madman when he said that God is dead; they all laughed at him because this pronouncement was old news already for them. This talk was so so weak... "or something like that."
All that we really know throughout the past, history and such is that everyone and everything eventually dies. What makes God/Gods any different??
As I stated, see my video.
Pick your poison. You either believe God is dead and let man determine man's fate (war, greed, famine, etc) or you let God and the Church run the show like they did for many a years and let them abuse the common man with their own power and greed.
No he didn't.
Haha haha, instead it’s the other way around. Nietzsche is long dead. God from eternity to eternity He is. He dwells outside of time and space; He is eternal, sovereign and lord of all; Him alone is holy and worthy to be praised.
Well the very fact that you are watching this video on him is enough to prove he lives on...ideas dont need a mortal form to inspire people...like how god inspires theists without one being sure of the existence of his/her mortal form
Keerthi Vasen@ ideas don’t need a mortal form to inspire people.....
No doubt about that.
God is dead that was his theme.
He negatively inspired (s) people to reject their own creator.
Can’t compare the materialistic world to the invisible one. According to atheism, Once an atheist dies, he/she stops exiting. theists argue, On the other hand, either you believe in God or not, once one is dead he/she still lives. Although his ideas live on, It’s quite clear that Friedrich Nietzsche is dead and awaiting Gods judgement.
The way I see it, Nietzsche believes in secular ethics/moralism or what I call "logic based moralism". If you do A, B will happen.
+Mark Moreno Logic-based "moralism" would be [objective] morality based on the necessary existence of God.
Ridiculous.
he shits on logicians so no. in fact he believes in passions far more than rationalism.
Prof Simon knows so little about Nietzsche - it is laughable.
God is not 'God' - it is all of those things that ground or anchor our beliefs.
Nietzsche is not - and never does - prescribe anything.
His observation about God is not to steer us away from nihilism - it is to observe that nihilism is on the way. He is doing genealogy - not metaphysics - he would laugh at a metaphysician - as he would laugh at Prof Simon.
But I must admit - Prof Simon does amazing work with the ancient Greeks.
Hi guys. All of this God is dead stuff is really amazing. Maybe he is dead. Maybe he deserves such a thing. You all seem really, really smart, all of you. I've got a question about a couple of Lutheran guys named Adolph Hitler and Johann Sebastian Bach: What's the difference? God is dead, isn't he? Bach was a German, and Hitler a devout student of the Bible, right? Maybe it's all good and evens out in the end. No worries. Have a happenin' day. Cheers and regards and all of the best. Gee, you're all smart as hell. I'm kinda impressed. Keep reading. Nietzsche is only sleeping.
this is total illiterate rubbish. and making the comment 'gee's your all so clever' is not a condescending comment in the way you want it, has anyone in history ever been offending for being called clever?
don't take out your frustrations for you own lack of intellect, by trying to belittle those who are content with their own intellectual abilities
This is not true.
Judeo-Christian God had to die for man's sin. The Greek gods engage in no such activities. Judeo-Christian God made man in his own image. The Greek gods were made in man's own elevated image = Ubermensch. Greek gods to Nietzsche were more interesting because they are alive and imperfect. Christian God is "perfect" yet dead and we killed him. Hehe........
Don't play with God, you'll become miserable
lol
We can do without God, but we can't do without morality.
Disastrously wrong interpretation
Here's the simple of it. If God is dead, THERE ARE NO VALUES. Need more help in the thought process? If so, you require more IQ.
'heres the simple of it?' that doesn't make sense? also how does someone acquire IQ?
wally
If this is an explanation of Nietzsche, you should go back and reread him.
So assuming God is dead, given that that would mean that there are no values: then you've just written a really worthless comment.
You obviously don't know what sarcasm is.
boring. zizek is better